
Class P' g^r 
Book^3jL__ 






f 



SFEECII 



/ 
/ 

/ 



HON. WILSON REILLY, 

OF PENNSYLTANIA., . 



or rATOB or mm 



ADMISSION OF KANSAS 



THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 



IK THB HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIYSB, 



M ABOH W, HIM 




WASHINGTON: 

PRIHTED BT LEMUEI, TOTTB&S. 
1868. 



SPEECH 



HON. W. REILLY. OF PENNSYLVANIA, 



CI VATOE Off 



THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS. 



THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 



SBLITHKaD Ur TUB HOUSE OF BEPBBSENTATIYBa. IDlECH tQ^ US8. 



The HoaM being; in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union — Mr, 
EEILLY said: 

Mr. CuAiRMAT* : T hare, up to this hour, refrained from a public expres- 
Bion cf my views on tho Kansas question, in tho hope that some fair and 
honorable compromise would be effected which would settle it in a way 
satisfactory to all parties. I begin to fear that my hope will prove a false 
one ; and as I will shortly be called upon to record my vote for or against tho 
admission of Kansas, under tho Lecomptou constitution, it is but proper 
that I should make known to my constituents and my country the reasons 
which induce me to vote as I shall when the time arrives for me to givd 
that vote. 

I confess, sir, that this question has given me more anxiety thSn all 
others to whicli I have had my attention called, or on which it has been 
my duty to vote since 1 took my seat as a member of this House. Indeed 
1 consider it a question of more moment, and fraught wilh more of good 
or evil to tlie country, than any other ever presented for the consideration 
of Congress since the formation of ou; Gov. rnracnt. It cei-fainly detnanda 
an exercise of the best judgm.nt, and must appeal to the patiiotism of 
overy true Ajnerican citizen. Wc n::iy, perhaps, in a fow days decide the 
fate of this Republic. Uow careful, t.i;i'n. ought W3 to be of our" words 
how sure that wy do no act which will causo us regiet in the future ! 

Tiiis subject has not occujiied the mines and engaged the attention of 
those in authority alone; it has been an 1 is yet being discussed at almost 
every fireside in our land. It has been, a.nl is now, a fruitful theme for 
all classes of our citizens. T'jc statesman aid the politician ; the minis- 
ter, thu merchant and the riechanic; the farraor, the laborer, and th« 
lawyer, have all fdt, and still feci, a deep solicitude for its rightful solu- 
tion and peaceful seltloiheut. They fear, and perhaps not without just 
cause, that, if not settlnd now, it may for years to co'me, continue and 
inureasd the jealousy and bittexuas* which uow exist between our brethrea 



of thci North and South, acrl are, therefore, anxiously directing their atten- 
tion and hope* to Congress ibr a speedj and amicable terrainatiou of 
the agitation and excitement which this vexed and dangerous question 
has produced throughout our country, po that peace and harmony may 
once more prevail among our people, and the Union stand, as it has in 
time past, a monument to perpetuate the fame of those whoso wisdom 
planned it, as also the pride and boast of the nation. 

How shall we meet the expectations of our fo!lr>w-citizens? How shall 
we drive from our political horizon the clouds -wi. i lower o'er our house^ 
and cause the sunshine of peace and happiness to enter and keep pos- 
session of every dwelling in our once thrice happy land ! We cannot 
do it by engendering and encouraging strife and contention between one 
portion and another of our people. We cannot do it by calling each other 
harsh names and using opprobrious epithets ; by stigmatizing as base, 
mean, and vile, all those who may hokl a certain class of human beings 
in servitude. We cai not do it by condemning in harsh, unmeasured 
terras of abuse those who may honestly think that the institution of slavery 
is wrong. No, sir, this will not heal the wound inflicted upon our country 
by the indiscretion of some and the madness of others. This will only tend 
to widen the breach, already too wide, between our fellow-citizens of the 
North and the South. The circumstances in which we are placed demand 
calm, sensible action, and unyielding devotion to the interests and wel- 
fare of the great people whose representatives and servants wo are. 

Mr. Chairman, in performing the duty which I undertook to discharge,^ 
I shall not detain the House by an elaborate or lengthy argument to provo 
that Kansas ought to be admitted into the Union under the Lecorapton con- 
stitution. Nor is it my purpose t) go into a history of the settlement of 
Kansas, to show that a portion of the people now there wont therewith th« 
intention of laaking it a slave State, and another portion io make it a free 
State. In my judgment, the citizens of this free country have a perfect 
right to settle on any of the unappropriated territory of the United States;, 
and, if the dicision of the highest judicial tribunal of the nation is to be 
taken as the law, they have a right to take their slaves with them, and, if 
they can, even establish slavery as one of their domestic institutions. Nor 
•will I pretend to show that the citizens of the North or of the South hare 
not the right to appropriate money for the purpose of sending persons 
into a Territory to make it either a free or a slave State, provided such 
persons, after they have arrived in the Territory, set about the accomplish- 
ment of their work in a peaceful and orderly manner, and in obedience 
to the Constitution of the United States. This part of the present con- 
troversy I shall hand over to others to discuss, if they feel inclined to do 
80, and shall proceed to state a few facts, as I understand them, and tho 
eonclusipns T have arrived at upon those facts. 

In the year 1854 an act of Congress was passed organizing the Terri- 
tory of Kansas. A Governor and other officers for the Territory wero 
appointed by the President then in power. In 1857 a Legislature was 
elected, and convened at Lecompton. Divers laws were pafised by thi» 
Legislature, among them one calling a convention to frame a constitution 
preparatory to the admission of Kansas into the Union as a State. This 
convention met at Lecompton, framed a constitution, and submitted it to a 
Toto of the people. 

There are four questions arising out of this et/ite of f«et« to which I vrill 
direct the attention of the •ommitt«« for a short Uta«. 



First. Was the Legislature vrhieli passed the act calling a convention to 
frame a constitution a legally electe*! body! 

Second. Was the convention which framed the Lecompton constitution 
a legally elected body ? 

Third. Was that convention bound by law, precedent, or otherwise, to 
enbrnit the constitution framed by it to a vote of the people for ratification 
or rejection ? 

Fourth. If Kansas shall be admitted into the Union, will the people of 
that State have a right to alter, amend, or abolish the Lecomption consti- 
tution in any other manner or at any other time than that prescribed in 
that constitution ? 

In answering the first of these questions, it seems to me that I need do 
Tery little mo'-e than read one or two extracts from the inaugural address 
of Governor WalkfT to the })eople of Kansas. I presume these will bo 
considered good authority by those who rely with so much confidence Hipon 
Lis statements. 

The extracts from the inaugural are as follows : 

" Under our practice, the preliminary net of framing a State constitution ia uni- 
formly performed through tlie instrumentality of a convention of delegates chosea 
by the people themselves. That convention is now about to be elected by you under 
the call of the Teriito-ial Legislature, created and still recot^ni^cd by the authority 
of Conifrcs8, and clothed by it, in the comprehensive language of the organic law, 
with full power to make such an enactment, The Territorial Legislature, then, in 
aesembliiig this convention, were fully sustained by the act of Congress, and the 
authority of the convention is distinctly recognised in my instructions from the 
President of the United States. Those who oppose this course cannot aver the 
alleged irregularitv of the Territorial Legislature, whose laws in town and city elec- 
tions, in corporate franchises, and on all other subjects but slavery, they acknowledge 
by thei:- votes and acquiescence. If that Legislature was invalid, then are we without 
law or order in Kansas — without town, city or county organizations; all legal and 
Jndieiiil traosactions are void, all titles null, and anarchy reigaa throughout our 
bordei-s." 

Again : 

" But it is said that the convention is not legally called, and that the election will 
Bot be freely and fairly conducted. The Territo- >! Legislature is the power or- 
dained for this purpose by tlic Congress of the L led States; and, in opposing it, 
you rcMst tlie authority of the FcdcW Governme.t. That Legislature was called 
.into being by the Congress of }8')i, and is recogni.-od in the very latest congressional 
legislation. It is recognised b/ the present Chief Magistrate of tlie Union, just 
«ho3en by the American people, and matiy of iti acts are now in operation here by 
ani versa! assent. As the Governor of the Territory of Kansa.«, I must su|>port the 
laws and the Constitution; and I have no other alternative under my oath but to 
see that all constitutional lav/sarc fully and fairly e.vecuted." 

The positiou here talcen by Governor Walker cannot, iti my opinion, be 
overthrown. But, sir, both parties in Kansas, have, by their acts, ad- 
mitted tliat L'.'gisl.'dure to have been a legally con-^tituted bo>ly, and tho 
act i)assed by it, calling a conveution, to be a biuding statute. Tlie pro- 
slavery party have admitted it by voting /or the constitution framed at 
Lecompton by the convention called into being by virtue of that act; and 
the free-State party admitted it by voting against that constitution on the 
4th of January last. For, if the Legislature which called the convention 
Lad no legal e.^istence, it had no legal authority to pass any Ihw ; and it 
would foUow, of course, that the act passed calling a convention was 
without force and void, and the convention which convened in pursuance 
of its provisions had no legal existence, and all its acta were simply and 
absolutely void. Will any gentleman on the other iside say that tho free- 



6 

State party, with Governor Stanton nt lluir bead, would act fio unwisely a* 
to have an extra session of the Legislature called for the purpose alone of 
passing an act submitting the Lecompton constitution to a vote of the 
people for ratification or rejection, if that constitution was a void instru- 
ment, as it certainly would be if the Legislature which passed the acfc 
calling the convention had no legal authority to pass such an act! It will 
not, I presume, be denied that the extra session of the Legiblature wan 
callec". at the instance of those who opposed the Lecompton constitution; 
and what was it called for, if the act which called the convention was an 
act passed by a body witliout legal existence or authority ? 

It seems to me, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the parties in Kansas are 
estopped by their own acts from denying that the Legislntuie, which passed 
the act referred to, was a legally elected body, and if it was so, the laws 
passed by that legislature, not conflicting with the Constitution of tho 
United States, were valid and binding. 

The second question, to an examination of which I will direct the at- 
tention of members, is, whether the Lccom];ton convention was a legally 
elected body, and if so, is the constitution framed by it a legal instrument? 

It is said that the convention was not a legally constituted body, and 
the constitution framed by it a void instrument for two reasons: First, 
because a number of the counties of the Territory were not represented in 
the convention, and could not be represented for the reason that the quali- 
fied citizens of those counties were not regist'^red, and consequently could 
not vote for delegates to the convention ; and, second Ij-, because the dele- 
gates who did assemble in that convention were not legally elected. 

Let us inquire whether or not these two positions are correct; and if 
they are correct, how the constitution framed at Lecompton would bo 
aflfectcd by them. 

By the nineteenth section of the territorial act organizing the counties 
therein, there were created thirty-seven counties. Three of these counties 
lie on the extreme western frontier, and are said to have no population to 
be either represented or disfranchised. These tliree counties aro Wash- 
ington, Clay, and Dickinson, It may be said that this assertion that these 
counties are without population is an assumption without proof to sustain 
it. I would inquire, where is the evidence that there is a single citizen 
residing in either of these counties qualified to vote ? At a time when, of 
all others, they would have voted, there was not a single vote given. On 
the 4th day of January last, when the constitution was submitted to a vote 
of the people, in the form in v.-hich the free-State party desired it to bo 
submitted, not a single vote was cast in either or all these three counties. 
Where were the qualified citizens at so impoitant an election as this; an 
election at which, if there were any voters tliere, they cculd have voted 
and shown their opposition to the Lecompton cotistitulion? The fair and 
legitimate inference — at least, until it is proved to be otherwise — is, that 
these counties v.'ere without population. This would leave thirty- four 
counties to be represented in the Lecompton convention, Tlicso wero 
arranged by law into election districts for the election of delegates to tho 
convention, as follows : 

Ist district, Doniphan county. 

2d " Brown and Nemeha coontiea. 

3d " Atchison county. 
4th " Leavenworth county. 
6th " Jefferson county. 
<Jth " Calhoun county. 



Vth. district, HarBb&Il ootmty. 

8th " Riley and Pottawatomie ooantiM 

0th " Johnson oonnty. 

10th " Douglas county. 

11th " Shawnee, UichardsoD, and Davis coontiM. 

12th " LykinpB county. 

18th " Franklin county. 

14Ui " Wcller, Brockinrid^c, Wise, and Madison coontiet. 

16th " Butler and Coffee countiea. 

16th " Lynn coutity. 

17th " Andereon county. 

18th " Bourbon, McOee, Dorn, and Allen eonnties. 

19th " Wootlson, Wilson, Godfrey, Greenwood, and Hunter oonntvea 

There were, as the returns made to the Governor will show, nine 
thousand two hundred and fifty-one voters registered in twenty one of 
these thirty-four counties. The names of these counties, and the number 
of voters rej^stered in each, are as follows : 

No. of No of lega 

4itlrift. Names of counties. voters. 

1 Doniphan 1,089 

2. Brown 206 

Nehema 140 

9 AtchieoD (0 

4. Leavenworth 1,83T 

8. Jefferson 669 

<^ Calhotin 291 

7 Marshall 209 

8 Riley 863 

Pottawatomie 205 

9 Johnson 499 

10 Douglas 1,S18 

11 Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis 288 

12 Lykings, 413 

13 Franklin no return 

14 4 counties , no retura 

16 2 counties no retura 

16 Lynn 41S 

17 1 (Anderson) no return 

18 Bourbon, McGee, Allen, and Dorn 645 

19 ft counties no roturo 



Total 9,251 

Upon this registration being returned to Governor Stanton, he mado an 
apportionment of representation in accordance with Inw. That apportion- 
nient is as follows : 

Ifit district, Doniphan county 7 delegates 

2d " Brown and Nemeha 2 " 

3d " Atchison 6 - 

4th " Leavenworth 12 •• 

5!.li " Jefferson 4 * 

6th " Calhoun 2 • 

7th " Marshall 1 - 

8th " Riley and Pottowatomio 4 * 

9th " Johnson 8 " 

10th *' Douglas. 3 " 

1 1th " Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis 2 " 

12th " Lykings 8 " 

I6th " Lynn 8 " 

]8tli " Bourbon, McGee, Dorn, and Alleu 4 • 



It will be Been, by this apportionmcut, that twenty -one of tho thirty-four 
counties wore represented in the Lecomptou convention, loaring eixteen 
not represented by their own delegates. 

I have shown, I think, that in three of these sixteen counties thoro waa 
no population to be represented. 

The citizens of the remaining 13 counties were not registered andcoBs©- 
quently could not vote for delegates to the convention. It is right that 
the citizens of other sections of the country should know why these persons 
■were not registered, and I will therefore endeavor to give that information. 
The act of the Legislature of Kansas provided that an enumeration of the 
citizens, qualified to vote for delegates should be taken. The sheriff of 
each county was required to perform this duty, aud was authorized to 
appoint deputies in each election precinct for that purpose. If there was 
no Sheriff in any county, the Probate Judge was required to perform the 
duty, and was authorized to appoint deputies. If in any county there was 
neith&r Sheriff nor Probate Judge, the Governor was to appoint persons to 
make the enumeration. The officeis making the enumeration were re- 
quired to return lists of the qualified voters into the office of the Probate 
Judge, and also to post lists at certain public places, for the inspection of 
all qualified citizens. The Probate Judge was required to continue his 
court, for one month, so that the lists returned into his ofiice m'^rht bo cor- 
rected at the instance of any person who might request it. Is there any 
evidence that a single person in either of these couuties, required his name 
to be put on the list of voters and was refused ? If there is p.uoh evidence 
I have not seen it. In my own State each person who desires to voto at 
any State or county election, is required to see for himself that his name is 
on the list of voters, ten days before tho day of election. If his name is 
not on the list, aud if he has not paid a State or county tax, within two 
years, immediately preceding the day of election,, he is not entitled to 
vote. If he obstinately refuses to attend to his duty, in having himself 
assessed, it is his own fault, and no sympathy is felt for him by any one.. 
The a' sessor is not bound to inform him whether his name is on tho list or 
not. iile must see to this himself. I am of opinion that the people of nay 
Stat" are in every respect as good as the people in Kansas, and that, if the % 
citi/A s of Kansas will not take tho trouble to have their names put upon 
the list of voters, as we aie required to do in the Keystone State, they have 
very little cause of complaint. They could have been registered if they 
liud pursued the proper course. 

Let us see, then, how many delegates the remaining thirteen of the so- 
called disfianchised counties would have been entitled to if the citizeus- 
therein residing had been registered and entitled to vote for delegates. 

At the election on the 4th of January last, when the Lecompton consti- 
tution was submitted for ratification or rejection to a vote of all the quali- 
fied citizens of Kansas, in the form desired by the free-State party, there 
were given in six of these thirteen counties one thousand two hundred and 
twenty-five votes, all told, aud in the other seven not one vote was cast. I 
•would ask again, where were tho qualified citizens of these seven counties 
at this time when they could have voted, and, if opposed to the Lecomp- 
ton constitution, had an opportunity to show that opposition? Were 
there qualified voters in these seven counties entitled to be represented in 
the convention ? If there were, their conduct was not only singularly 
atrange, but it affords strong ground for a presumption that they were sal- 



isfied with what fho conrention had done, and approred tho confititution. 
There is a trito adage, and one generally tme, that silence givea oonsenL 
It is certainly so in elections. 

Governor Walker assumed this position in his inaugural address to the 
people of Kansas. He says : 

"TheJawhftB performed ite entire appropriate function w>ien it exlonda to tho- 
people the right of suffrage, but it cannot compel the performance of that dutv. 
^Throughout our whole Union, however, and wherever free government provaila, 
those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage authorize those who do 
vote to act for them in that contingencj', and the absentees are as much bound under 
the law and constitution, where there is no fraud or violence, by the act of tho 
majority of those who do vote, as if all had participated in the election. Otherwise, 
OB voting must be voluntary, self-government would be impracticable, and monarchy 
or despotism would remain as the only alternative." 

I have not read this portion of the Governor's inaugural to show that 
the citizens of Kansas had a right to annul, by their votes oq the 4th of 
January last, the constitution which had been adopted by a vote of the 
citizens on the 21st of December preceding. I only quote from this 
authority to establish the rule which I have laid down, because whatever 
the Governor says now is taken by rny friends on the other side of the 
House as verity itself. If this rule be a correct one, does not a fair pro- 
flumption arise, from the conduct of the citizens of these seven counties in 
not voting against the constitution on the 4th day of January, that they 
either approved it, or that they would not have voted for delegates if they 
could have done so! To my mind it is clear that, if they approved the 
constitution, or if they obstinately refused to vote when they had the 
opportunity, they would have refused to vote for delegates if they had been. 
permitted so to do, and in either case they are in law without remedy, and 
the Lecompton constitution is to be taken as an expression of their will. 

Let us inquire next to what number of delegates the remaining six of 
the disfranchised counties would have been entitled in the convention if 
they could have elected delegates? The convention, by legislative enact- 
ment, was to consist of sixty delegates. The number of voters registered 
in the counties represented in the convention was 9,251. Add to this 
number the whole number of votes given in these six counties on the 4th 
of January last, which was 1,225, and you have as the total, 10,47G. This- 
number divided by GO, (the number of delegates of which the convention 
was to be composed,) and it will show how many voters it required to elect 
a delegate. ItAvill be seen that it required 174. If we divide 1,225 (the 
number of votes polled in the six counties referred to) by 174, it will show 
that the six ounties were entitled to just seven delegates. 

Now, sir, taking it as granted that all those counties would have elected 
free-State d'.-lpgates, there would have been just that number of free-Slato 
delegates in. the convention. But, sir, let us go further, and admit, for the 
sake of tlie argument, that the thirteen counties said to be disfranchised, 
(not taking in the account th<- three where nobody lived,) had been entitled 
to all the delegates, except those who took their seats as members of the- 
convention, they would have bet-n entitled to only sixteen delegates; for it 
will be observed that forty-four delegates from the other districts signed 
the constitution. What could have been done by these sixteen delegates?^ 
Could they have controlled the action of the convention? Would not tho 
constitution have come from the convention pix-cisely as it did? It is but 
iiiir to presume that it would. 

Tho position assumed by liome, that the delej^tea who did aaaeiuble in- 



convention at L<?corapton and frame a constitntion, were not legally elected, 
is not, in my judgment, eustained by the fncta, and ia without support in 
law. I have never yet heard it asserted, hero or elsewhere, that these del- 
egates had not severally received a majority of all the legal votes polled 
at the delegate election. If such is the fact, I have not seen the proof. It 
is said, however, and perhaps truiy h::ii), that these delegates received a 
great many fraudulent votes. What f-fffct would this have on their right 
to seats in the conrention? If tht'y lect-ived a majority of all legal votes 
polled, were they not legally elected ? AVliat is the inquiry before a com- 
mittee appointed to ascertain the right of a member of Congress to his seat! 
Certainly it is not whether he has received fraudulent votes, but whether 
he has received a majority of all the legal votes polled. If he has, he ia 
declared elected. I know of no ditferenco in an election of a member of 
Congress and a delegate to a convention which would render the election 
of one void and not that of the other. If all the offices were to be vacated 
now in our Union, by those tilling them, who have received illegal votes, 
there would be scarcely a corporal's guard of officials in all the land. I 
do not wish to be understood as approving the frauds committed in Kansas. 
I hate fraud at elections, and heartily despise the men who can commit 
them. But we must not be led to the other extreme, and pronounce all 
elections void because some illegal votes may be polled by bad men. Thia 
would destroy our Government itself, and leave us without law and all our 
rights insecure. 

It is further urged as an argument against the Lecompton convention, 
that a large number of the qualified citizens of Kansas refused to vote at 
the election of delegates, because they apprehended violence on the part of 
the pro-slavery men, and that they would be outvoted by fraudulent votesj 
and that even if they did poll a majority of votes, faLse and fraudulent re- 
turns would hrtve been made to defeat them. Would this plea answer 
in a conrt of justice if the question of the election of an officer was be- 
ing inquired into before it? Certainly not. The mere apprehension of 
violence or fraud could not be alleged before a judicial tribunal so as to 
jrender void an election. It is the same here. We cannot inquire into the 
apprehensions of citizens of fraud or violence to invalidate an election. 
Governor Walker, when .speaking of the act calling the convention, and 
entreating the citizens of Kansas to vote at the election of delegates, was 
right when he said : 

"I see in this act calling the convention no improper or unconstitutioDal restrie- 
taons upon the riglit of suffrage. I see in it, no teat-oath, or rather einnilar provisions 
objected to ia relation to previous laws, but clearly repealed as repugnant to tho 
provisions of this act, 80 far as I'egards the election of delegates to this convention. 
It said that a fair and full vote will not be taken. Who can safely j)redict such a 
result? Nor is it just for a majority, as they allege, to throw the power into the 
hands of a minority from a mere apprehension (I trust entirely unfounded) that they 
will not be permitted to exerc'se the right of suffrage. If, by fraud or violence, a 
majority should not be permitted to vole, there is a remedy, it ia hoped, in tho wis- 
<iora and justice of the convention itself, acting under the obligations of an oatb, and 
a proper respongibility to the tribunal of public opinion." 

These people who refused to vote for this reason were badly instructed, 
and should have disobeyed their leaders, gone to the polls, ofi"erod to vote, 
At least ; and if they had been turned away by violence, or defeated by 
fraudulent votes or returns, the convention would not have dared to sano- 
tion the outrage. By staying away from the polls they gave the right to 
those who did vote to secure a majority of the delegates to tho convention, 
And that, too, in accordance with all the rules of law in such cases. 



11 

I have already quoted what Governor Walker said to the people of Kan- 
sas on this prjint, and n^^rce with him that " those? who abstain from the 
exercise of the right of Kiiffrntje authorize those who do vote to act for 
them in that contino;encj." If this rule was not to be observed, all free 
^verninents would soon be at an end. 

But, sir, it is doubted by some eminent statesmen, as well as lawyers, 
whether we have any right to inquire into the light of a member of the 
Lecompton convention to his seat. They say, and I agree with tlicm, that 
such a body is the solo judge of the qualifioations of its own members; and 
that if fraud was committed in the election of one or more of tl.e dele- 
gates, the convention alone could inquire into it. This is certainly the 
law with re;card to members of Congress, and of all the legislative bodies 
in the Union. Is it not the same with regard to the election of delegates 
to a territorial convention! I think I have shown that the delegates to 
the Lecompton. convention were legally elected ; and if they were, and 
once took their seats, it will not be denied that they had the right to frame 
a constitution for the people of Kansas. 

That the Lecompton constitution is a legal instrument cannot, in my 
judgment, be successfully denied. All parties in Kansas have, by their 
acts, admitted it to be legal. The pro-slavery j^arty admit it now, and ask 
for the admission of the State into the Union under it. The free-Stato 
party lias recognised it as a binding instrument, not only by voting on the 
4th of January last to nullify it, but also by voting for the oflicers provided 
for in it. If the eonstitution was then rendered void, the officers elected 
on that day are without authority, and if they attempt to exercise any 
authority, the people will be at liberty to disregard all they do. If this bo 
true, the people of Kansas are wilhout a government. Is there any gen- 
tleman here bold enough to take this position. 

It is said, however, that if the constitution framed at Lecompton was 
even legally framed, it was made void by the vote of the people on the 
4th of^Jaiiuary. Is this correct? Will any gentleman argue that the 
same act that called the government of Kansas into existence, made void 
the constitution under which that government was called into being ?^ Ilovr 
can a government exist if the instrument is made void by virtue ot which 
the government " lives, moves, and has its being?" If the Governor, and 
other State ofGcers, and the members of the Legislature elected on the 4th 
of January are legally elected, then the constitution under which they were 
elected is a legal instrument. 

The next question for discussion is, was the Lecompton convention bound 
by law, precedent, or otherwise, to submit the constitution there framed to 
a vote of the people for adoption or rejection ! 

I confess that I would have preferred a submission of that constitution 
altogether to a vote of the qualified citizens. I have every reason to 
believe tliat th« President desired tiiat submission ; and we all know that 
Governor Walker preferred it. Bu: let me ask, what has my preference to 
do with the question ? What had the desire of the Presid-mt or of Gov- 
ernor Walker to do with it? Just nothing at all. The convention was 
independent of all control, let it be assumed by high or low. Governor 
Walker says to the people of Kansas: 

"Yon fihould not conBole yonrsolves, my fellow-citizens, with the reflection tliat 
you may. by a Rubrtoqiicnt vol" defeat tlio intificalion of tlic constitution. Altliough 
moet anxiouB to secure to you thft exercise of tliat great constitutional liglit, and 
believing that the couRtitulion is the servant and not the master of the i>eople, yet 
I have no power to dictat« tL« proaeediujii of that body." 



IS 

O^orernor Walker was riglit He had not, nor had any other human 
being outside of the convention, the power to dictate what its procaodings 
should be. 

Was there any law requiring the convention to submit the constitution to 
a vote of the people? If there w;vs, I have failed in my search for it. 

The territoriHl act, under the authority of which the convention assem- 
bled, is in the words following: 

"Tlie delegates thus elected [to the convention] shall assemble in convent! oa at 
the capital of waid Territory on the firet Monday of September next, and shall proceed 
to form its constitution and State governiient, which shall be republican in its from, 
for admission into the Union, on aa equal footing with the original States in all re- 
epeots wliateyer, by the name of the State of Kansas." 

It will be observed that there is not one word, either in the organic law 
organizing the Territory, or in the territorial act calling the convention, 
requiring a submission of the constitution to a vote of the people, before 
it should become binding on them as the fundamental law of the State. 
By what law, then, was its submission required? By no law v/hatcver. 

Indeed, it is but fair to argue that tlic people of Kansas were opposed to 
the submissifjn, for the reason tliat the act which was passed, calling the 
convention, was vetoed by the Governor because it did not require the con- 
vention to submit the constit'Uion to a vote of the people, and it was after- 
wards pas9e<l, over the veto of the Governor, by a vote of two thirds of the 
members of" the Legislatui'e. If the members of the Legislature represented 
the views of their coustilaents, and it is generally supposed that legislators 
do so, the enactment of a law under such circumstances would be strong 
evidence to prove th?.t the people were averse to a submission of the con- 
stitution, for adoption or rejection, to a vote of the citizens. 

Did preceilent require a submission of that constitution to a vote of the 
people of Kansas ? Not one of the original States of this Union bad sub- 
mitted to a vote of the people its constitution before entering into the 
Union. Not one half of the remaining States which have GRtered the 
Union since, had their constitution submitted before they were admitted. 
Two thirds, at least, of all our States entered the Union without a submis- 
sion of their constitutions. Are all these constitutions invalid hecause they 
■were not submitted to a vote of the citizens? Who will dare .Tisert such 
an absurdity? I wish not to be understood as opposing a submission of 
State constitutions to a vote. I am in favor of it. But I assert here that 
a constitution is valid and oinding without it; and when the law calling a 
convention to frame or alter a constitution does not require such submis- 
Bion, the convention is not bound to submit it. 

The last subject to which I shall direct the attention of the House, is the 
question so much controverted hei'e and elsewhere; that is, whether or not 
the people of Kansas can alter, amend, change, or abolish the Lecompton 
const'tution at any time they may see proper so to do ? 

I hold the doctrine, Mr. Chairman, that if Kansas is admitted into the 
Union under the Lecompton constitution, the qualified citizens of that State 
can alter, amend, or abolish that constitution whenever they see proper. 
I am further of the opinion that the citizens of a State may change then' 
constitutions in any other way than that prescribed in the constitution 
itself; and that if they do, it will he binding upon the people of the State 
until it is changed again. In this opinion I am at least sustained by pre- 
cedent, and I think by oommoQ sense. The people of the State of Mary- 



u 

and ar« at this hour governed by a fionstitution framed and adopted 
different lime, and in a different mode, from that prescribed in the consti- 
^totion changed. 

The constitution of tlat State prorided as followi: 

"Tliat this form of goTernmcnt, and the declaration of rightii, and no part thereof, 
ehall be altered, changed, or abolished, unk-es a bill eo as to alter, change, or abolish 
the Fame, phall pass the General AsFcnibly and be published at least three months 
before a new election, and ehall be confirmed by the General Aesembly after a nevr 
election of delegates in the fiist Bceeiim after such nevr election." 

It will be observed that this provides that two consecutive Legislature* 
shall approve the law providing for the alteration of the constitution. The 
Legislature at a single session passed an act authorizing the people to 
decide by vote whether a convention should be called to amend the con- 
stitution. The people decided that a convention should be called ; the 
convention assembled ; amended the constitution ; the amended constitu- 
tion was adopted by the people ; and they are now living under, and ob- 
serving .IS valid and binding, its provisions. Who dare say aught against 
it, or who deny ihem the right to live under that constitution, and to 
punish all who violate it ? Can any people out. of that State deny its 
validity? and if the citizens in the State are satisfied with it, who has any- 
right to complain? I am informed that the present Legislature of Mary- 
land, which has a majority of that party usually called "Know Nothings.'* 
have passed an act to amend their present constitution before the lime 
fixed in the constitution itself for its change. If the people of Maryland, 
under this act, should change their constitution, is there any power or 
people outside of Maryland that can interfere and prevent its going into 
operation ? Certainly nfot. I do not speak with certainty ; but I am under 
the impression that the States of New York and Indiana changed their 
respective constitutions in a different manner, or at a different time, from 
that prescribed for so doing in the constitution changed. Will any one 
here say that the constitutions of these Slates are not valid, and can be 
violated with impunity? I think not. Is there anything more sacred and 
unchangeable in the constitntion of Kansas than in those of Maryland, New 
York, and Indiana? 

If the people of Kansas shall desire to alter, amend, or abolish the Lr^ 
compton constitution, if the State shall be admitted with that constitution, 
all tl;'-y have to do is to get an act of the Legislature passed, calling a con- 
vention to alter or amend the same ; and if the pLOple, by a vote, either 
adopt or acquiesce in the constitution so altered or amended, no people in 
any other State of this Union can interfere. I will venture to say that 
there is not a member on the other side of the Ucuse who will say that if 
the Legislature, at its first soesion, shall pass an act calling a convention, 
and the act is approved by the Governor, and the convention should f^tiiko 
out all the Lecompton constitution, which recognizes slavery as one of the 
domestic institutions of Kansas, and if the people adopt the amended con- 
stitution, it would not be valid and binding on all people residing there. 
If this can be done, why not abolish the whole constitution and make an 
entire new one? If they do so, no power under Jieaven can inti-rfero with 
them and their riphts under that constitution as long as it rt-uuiitis unal- 
tered. Thift may be called levoluiion. If it io, it is a peaceful rtvolutiou, 
under form of law, and destroys no man's righta. 
I assume the position, also, ibat the peopl« of KaoAAs have tie ligbt ts» 



14 

alter, amend, or abolish their constitution at any time they may sec proper, 
because that rijrht is reserved to them in the bill of riirhts. There ia a pro- 
vision in the bill of rights in these words: 

"2 All politicftl power ia inherent in the people, and all free governnie-nta or©, 
fonnded oa their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and, thorofore, tfaey 
have i»t all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, refonri, or ablolida. 
their form of goverument in such manner as they may think proper." 

It is said that a bill of rights in a constitution is the same as a proanible 
to a law. What is a preamble to a law but a statement of the ne M'.H.sity of 
a law to secure some right or redress some wrong! It simply shows that 
up to that time some right was left insecure, or sorno wrong unredressed^ 
by reason of the want of a law. It does not reserve a right. . It shows the 
necessity of taking away from some the right to injure their neighbors. 
But wliat does this section of the declaration of rights provide? Tliat the 
right of the people to alter, reform, or abolish their form of ffovernmeHt, 
in suck manner as they may think proper, is inalienable. The definition of 
the word inalienable is, "ri^Ais which cannot be given vpP If this right 
is inalienable it cannot be taken away bv any other provision of the snrao 
constitution. If it is reserved in the people — not given up by them — it ia 
a provision above all others, and must be observed bafore all others; be- 
cause it is for the security of the rights of the people against oppression 
and wrong. The rights of the people cannot be taken away or curtailed 
except by an express provision of law ; and when that provi>ion cornea ia 
conflict with another provision in the same instrument, by which a certaia 
right is reserved to and declared to ba inalienable and indefeasible in the 
people, the former must give away to the latter. 

And now, Mr. Chairman, I have discharged the duty I undertook, in the 
best manner I could. I will record my vote for the admission of Kansas 
under the Lecompton constitution, because I believe the laws of my coun- 
try, which I am bound to support, demand it of me. The consequences to 
myself I have nothing to do with. I am in the hands of those who hon- 
ored me with a seat on this floor. They are honest, intelligent, and 
generous, and I know they will do me the justice to believe that my 
opinions are honestly entertained. If they think I have misrepresented 
them, and that there is another more worthy or capable to represent them, 
here, I believe in tl eir right to send that person in my place. I will not 
com[)lain. When I have done my duty in obedience to the dictates of my 
judgment, and, as I believe, in accordance with the lawsof my country, I shall 
be contented, whatever may be my fate in the future. I would now wil- 
lingly sacrifice my position, and all my political prospects in the future, 
whatever they may be, if, by so doing, I could secure peace and quiet 
among our people. I love my native land; I am proud of the past history 
and present greatness of my country ; and I confidently look forward to 
the day when all nations shall acknowledge our superiority, and when, 
through the benign influence of our free institutions, the kingdoms of the 
earth shall be regenerated, and the whole human race disenthralled. Let 
ua cherish these institutions. Let ua environ our Union with an impeno- 
trabla wall of strong arms and stout hearts. That Union ? Who does not 
love it? The grandest edifice the world has ever beheld — erect<;d by the 
■wisdom of men of whom the world was not worthy — cemented by the, 
blood of the purest patriots who ever lived in the tide of time, and b^ 
queathed by them to us a priceless herit^ige — it haa resisted all the rud© 
ahooka and angry wavea which Imve heieiofore threatened its deatruction, 



and Bhall stand firm apon il« base in all time to come, if we, and those 
coming after ue.ehall fjuard it with but half the vigilan(5e exercised by thoee 
■who Bpent their energies and lives to secure its perpetuity. I earnestly be- 
seech my brethren of the North and of the South to act, now, wlu-n our 
country is perhaps in its greatest peril, not as the Representatives of a di- 
vided and distracted people, but as the Representatives of the whole coun- 
try. Let us abandon all sectional feeling, and rally around the btandard of 
our common country. Let us keep our tim(»-honored flag waving gallantly 
over our heads, no star obliterated, no stripe erased, until, as State after 
State shall be admitted into our Union, arid star after star be a(ide<l to that 
flag, all over the land, from North to South, from East to West, there may 
be borne on every bre«iz^ " the cry is still they come." 



1 



i 



u 

•M. 



RBD" 



